So, the fact of the matter, from RTFA, is that the actual research and standardized classifications for gun violence and crime vary as much as from person to person and study to study used, and are of poor quality. There is no consensus on what justifies such actions as "Defensive Gun Use", the definition of a justified homicide varies wildly from the national and individual state standards,

And...the ability to study that by relevant scientific bodies, like the NIH and the CDC, have been quashed by legislation aimed at keeping these institutions from putting out any studies which might be used to support gun control in any form.

You know, this sounds a lot like the same avenue that the National Institute for Drug Abuse/Drug Policy and the Justice Department takes towards research on illegal drugs.

BronyMedic:So, the fact of the matter, from RTFA, is that the actual research and standardized classifications for gun violence and crime vary as much as from person to person and study to study used, and are of poor quality. There is no consensus on what justifies such actions as "Defensive Gun Use", the definition of a justified homicide varies wildly from the national and individual state standards,

And...the ability to study that by relevant scientific bodies, like the NIH and the CDC, have been quashed by legislation aimed at keeping these institutions from putting out any studies which might be used to support gun control in any form.

[www.troll.me image 304x198]

You know, this sounds a lot like the same avenue that the National Institute for Drug Abuse/Drug Policy and the Justice Department takes towards research on illegal drugs.

Same thing, different lobby. Key prohibition on studies is that if it might be used for gun control. The problem is that maybe our current gun control laws are ineffective and do the wrong things. Maybe they should be thrown out and replaced by reasonable legislation that is designed to actually reduce gun-related violence and maybe that could be done without interfering with the RKBA and maybe, just maybe, it might even be better for gun owners.

We'll never know, as we'll never really get to look into it. I still think that since the majority of gun violence is related to street crime and drugs and the remaining is related to domestic violence, if we legalized drugs and turned that cash toward treatment while toughening laws on domestic abuse we might actually halve our numbers of dead people. Wouldn't that be a bonus? Maybe address poverty too and quit piling poor people into dense neighborhoods full of poor people creating little black holes of hopelessness where 12-year-olds get shot for their shoes.

hinten:Watch this thread where Farkers will show their own research and opinions proving the above statement wrong.

Well, yeah. Kind of like Evolution, Climate Change, and Abortion, FARK has a proud tradition of vetting bloggers, political hacks, and TV Talking Heads as experts in the field of scientific research and above reproach.

HOW DARE YOU QUESTION THAT, SIR!

dr_blasto:Key prohibition on studies is that if it might be used for gun control.

The problem is that prohibition pretty much states that any legitimate research on the topic can't be performed, because it might come out contrary to the will of their constituents. Otherwise, I generally agree with your statement.

dr_blasto:We'll never know, as we'll never really get to look into it.

You hit the nail on the head. We'll never look into it in a hard, scientific manner. Instead, our guiding cues will be given to us by the likes of the NRA and the Brady Foundation, and the myriad of political heads on national Television ready to ridicule anyone who dares to question what they say to the American Public.

BronyMedic:hinten: Watch this thread where Farkers will show their own research and opinions proving the above statement wrong.

Well, yeah. Kind of like Evolution, Climate Change, and Abortion, FARK has a proud tradition of vetting bloggers, political hacks, and TV Talking Heads as experts in the field of scientific research and above reproach.

HOW DARE YOU QUESTION THAT, SIR!

dr_blasto: Key prohibition on studies is that if it might be used for gun control.

The problem is that prohibition pretty much states that any legitimate research on the topic can't be performed, because it might come out contrary to the will of their constituents. Otherwise, I generally agree with your statement.

dr_blasto: We'll never know, as we'll never really get to look into it.

You hit the nail on the head. We'll never look into it in a hard, scientific manner. Instead, our guiding cues will be given to us by the likes of the NRA and the Brady Foundation, and the myriad of political heads on national Television ready to ridicule anyone who dares to question what they say to the American Public.

Legitimate research could shut that whole thing down. We'll just truck along listening to the shills on the pro- and anti-gun control think tanks, lobby organizations and paid hacks as the sole source of our policies. So long as that continues, we'll still have thousands of dead people every year who die unnecessarily and, simultaneously, weird gun laws that make no sense and only serve to confound gun hobbyists. We've clearly chosen the direction wherein everybody loses except the lobbyists themselves; they'll laugh all the way to the bank.

xanadian:BronyMedic: You know, this sounds a lot like the same avenue that the National Institute for Drug Abuse/Drug Policy and the Justice Department takes towards research on illegal drugs.

I was thinking this exact same thing. I guess it's politically convenient on both sides of the aisle to not resolve this issue.

I hate to get political this early in a this thread but what about Obama's proposal which specifically addresses the issue of funding and allowing CDC to do further research is irrational?Yes, the whole discussion around automatic weapons vs any other weapon is a sideshow but I do believe that there are some rational heads that really do want to get closer to the truth.

Cigarette companies didn't want anyone to research the cause of lung cancer, oil companies don't want anyone to research the cause of global warming, and the NRA doesn't want anyone to research gun violence.

The science clearly shows that libs are scared of guns and they call magazines "clips" probably because clips are what they call saggy pants which are what black teens wear because they want to be just like their homosexual heroes in prison who wear saggy pants because they are gay.

hinten:I do believe that there are some rational heads that really do want to get closer to the truth.

The question is what will people do with the truth when they know, assuming its the actual truth and not just another study rigged to support a specific point of view. Because we've had more of the latter than anything else in recent years.If an unbiased study doesn't support the political desires of the ruling party, will they heed its suggestions or sweep those results under a rug?

/and I mean this for both pro-gun and anti-gun perspectives./Because I don't see people turning in their guns any sooner than a failing politician accepting blame for his policies causing poverty and crime.

hinten:xanadian: BronyMedic: You know, this sounds a lot like the same avenue that the National Institute for Drug Abuse/Drug Policy and the Justice Department takes towards research on illegal drugs.

I was thinking this exact same thing. I guess it's politically convenient on both sides of the aisle to not resolve this issue.

I hate to get political this early in a this thread but what about Obama's proposal which specifically addresses the issue of funding and allowing CDC to do further research is irrational?Yes, the whole discussion around automatic weapons vs any other weapon is a sideshow but I do believe that there are some rational heads that really do want to get closer to the truth.

Can't have none of that. This is GUNS. SECOND AMENDMENT FREEDOMS. Studying guns is just a way to ban them, what part of being an American don't you understand?

way south:/Because I don't see people turning in their guns any sooner than a failing politician accepting blame for his policies causing poverty and crime.

No need to turn them in, once the UN takes over your property Obama is going to send jack booted negro thugs from ACORN to pick you up and put you into a FEMA concentration camp. Then said thugs will cuckold your wife, rape your daughters, and steal all your guns to have them melted down into slag. Said slag will then be used to produce a Eifell Tower sized stature of Karl Marx who will be blowing Chairmen Mao.

I don't really get what the author's point is. Is it just that no research currently exists, and that future research will be difficult since the definitions of important measuring terminology are vague? Because really, if that's it, who cares?

MyKingdomForYourHorse:way south: /Because I don't see people turning in their guns any sooner than a failing politician accepting blame for his policies causing poverty and crime.

No need to turn them in, once the UN takes over your property Obama is going to send jack booted negro thugs from ACORN to pick you up and put you into a FEMA concentration camp. Then said thugs will cuckold your wife, rape your daughters, and steal all your guns to have them melted down into slag. Said slag will then be used to produce a Eifell Tower sized stature of Karl Marx who will be blowing Chairmen Mao.

Geez man, keep up. Don't you read The Blaze?

Why would anyone read a liberal rag like that?You might as well get your infromation from Al Jazeera.

LouDobbsAwaaaay:Cigarette companies didn't want anyone to research the cause of lung cancer, oil companies don't want anyone to research the cause of global warming, and the NRA doesn't want anyone to research gun violence.

For the past couple of years our Conservative Canadian Prime Minister has basically been firing all Federal scientists. Sometimes it is just better to be in the dark. Makes Conservative policies more palatable.

Tomahawk513:I don't really get what the author's point is. Is it just that no research currently exists, and that future research will be difficult since the definitions of important measuring terminology are vague? Because really, if that's it, who cares?

The other thing he doesn't do (but which real scientists do all the time) is talk about techniques to identify and quantify error in studies like these. Scientists have plenty of tools to analyze data to determine how high quality it is, but normally this requires access to the source data, which I'm not sure is available anywhere.

way south:hinten: I do believe that there are some rational heads that really do want to get closer to the truth.

The question is what will people do with the truth when they know, assuming its the actual truth and not just another study rigged to support a specific point of view. Because we've had more of the latter than anything else in recent years.If an unbiased study doesn't support the political desires of the ruling party, will they heed its suggestions or sweep those results under a rug?

/and I mean this for both pro-gun and anti-gun perspectives./Because I don't see people turning in their guns any sooner than a failing politician accepting blame for his policies causing poverty and crime.

Well, doing research on smoking has, ultimately, had an effect on consumption. It has taken a long time and there were certainly plenty of studies that came to different conclusions, some sponsored by cigarette manufacturers, but there was a clear impact on society. And even after the research it takes millions of dollars to change society even after the facts are known. Some might argue there is a whole other parasitic cottage industry popping up enjoying those millions of dollars but either way the money gets moved, society is changing.

I am in no way comparing the issue of guns with the issue of cigarettes. For starters, one product is a consumption based product which has different intrinsic values and market behaviors from guns. That's why bringing up prohibition in a gun thread is a red herring as well. But the example does show that research leads to insight leads to action leads to impact on societal behavior and attitudes.

Lobbyists don't want it at all for obvious reasons and anti-gun folks are usually motivated by emotion. It does speak volumes that the NRA is against any research because they feel that it would always make guns bad, but I honestly think that it would deflect the attention away from the actual guns and place the violence on the environmental/personal correlations. A lot of places have as many guns as us but don't see the violence. That in itself should also speak volumes.

The idea that more guns would cause more shootings is just logical. More bear traps would cause more bear trap accidents. This is the default position/assumption. In my mind, it is up to the gun nuts to show that it makes society safer, which obviously they can't do.

The only logical argument for gun rights is an ideological one that people should be entitled to defend themselves however they see fit regardless of the obvious net reduction to societal safety.

I don't agree with that argument but at least it isn't fallacious or dishonest.

insano:I think the answer is pretty clearly that being a paranoid and overprotective father is not an instance of using a gun for self-defense. That's a bad example.

But let me guess which side would use this to inflate the instances of 'self-defense' with a firearm.

I think the point is more, "This story is a definitive use of a gun- how do you classify it, and you must classify it as something."

One goal is to establish how many total gun uses there are (regardless of whether they're fired or not) and then quantify those types of uses. You might not agree that this usage is "self defense," but it's clearly on a whole different level from a criminal brandishing a gun while robbing someone. Neither instance results in a shooting, but they're both uses, and we'd like to be able to understand how guns are actually being used.

mrshowrules:The idea that more guns would cause more shootings is just logical. More bear traps would cause more bear trap accidents. This is the default position/assumption. In my mind, it is up to the gun nuts to show that it makes society safer, which obviously they can't do.

The only logical argument for gun rights is an ideological one that people should be entitled to defend themselves however they see fit regardless of the obvious net reduction to societal safety.

I don't agree with that argument but at least it isn't fallacious or dishonest.

Is it logical to look at the .001% of people who use guns inappropriately and paint every gun owner as irresponsible or to look at the 99.999% that do. Obviously I'm pulling the numbers out of my ass but you see the point.

Citrate1007:Lobbyists don't want it at all for obvious reasons and anti-gun folks are usually motivated by emotion. It does speak volumes that the NRA is against any research because they feel that it would always make guns bad, but I honestly think that it would deflect the attention away from the actual guns and place the violence on the environmental/personal correlations. A lot of places have as many guns as us but don't see the violence. That in itself should also speak volumes.

you sure bout that? The USA leads the world in gun ownership per capita, by a factor of at least 2 or 3 over most of the world you want to be comparing to (e.g., Western Europe, Japan, Australia/NZ, etc)

INTRODUCTION: Gun Facts is a free e-book that debunks common myths about gun control. It is intended as a reference guide for journalists, activists, politicians, and other people interested in restoring honesty to the debate about guns, crime, and the 2nd Amendment.

dr_blasto:BronyMedic: hinten: Watch this thread where Farkers will show their own research and opinions proving the above statement wrong.

Well, yeah. Kind of like Evolution, Climate Change, and Abortion, FARK has a proud tradition of vetting bloggers, political hacks, and TV Talking Heads as experts in the field of scientific research and above reproach.

HOW DARE YOU QUESTION THAT, SIR!

dr_blasto: Key prohibition on studies is that if it might be used for gun control.

The problem is that prohibition pretty much states that any legitimate research on the topic can't be performed, because it might come out contrary to the will of their constituents. Otherwise, I generally agree with your statement.

dr_blasto: We'll never know, as we'll never really get to look into it.

You hit the nail on the head. We'll never look into it in a hard, scientific manner. Instead, our guiding cues will be given to us by the likes of the NRA and the Brady Foundation, and the myriad of political heads on national Television ready to ridicule anyone who dares to question what they say to the American Public.

Legitimate research could shut that whole thing down. We'll just truck along listening to the shills on the pro- and anti-__________ think tanks, lobby organizations and paid hacks as the sole source of our policies. So long as that continues, we'll still have thousands of________ every year who _______ unnecessarily and, simultaneously, weird __________ laws that make no sense and only serve to confound _____________. We've clearly chosen the direction wherein everybody loses except the lobbyists themselves; they'll laugh all the way to the bank.

Citrate1007:mrshowrules: The idea that more guns would cause more shootings is just logical. More bear traps would cause more bear trap accidents. This is the default position/assumption. In my mind, it is up to the gun nuts to show that it makes society safer, which obviously they can't do.

The only logical argument for gun rights is an ideological one that people should be entitled to defend themselves however they see fit regardless of the obvious net reduction to societal safety.

I don't agree with that argument but at least it isn't fallacious or dishonest.

Is it logical to look at the .001% of people who use guns inappropriately and paint every gun owner as irresponsible or to look at the 99.999% that do. Obviously I'm pulling the numbers out of my ass but you see the point.

Actually, if we're doing order of magnitude, you're spot on.

Of the 300,000,000 firearms in the US, only 30,000 or so are used in shootings, and a large chunk of that are suicides which can't really be blamed on guns anymore than Japanese jumpers can be blamed on the trains they hop under.

Citrate1007:Lobbyists don't want it at all for obvious reasons and anti-gun folks are usually motivated by emotion. It does speak volumes that the NRA is against any research because they feel that it would always make guns bad, but I honestly think that it would deflect the attention away from the actual guns and place the violence on the environmental/personal correlations. A lot of places have as many guns as us but don't see the violence. That in itself should also speak volumes.

I think their biggest concern is that any research, no matter how good or bad, will be construed against them. There is a lot of junk science concerning guns, and a lot of good science that was later retracted by authors once more information became available.

This is the top Google result for something about bad gun science: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2936974/. It's just not feasible for a layperson to sit down and really examine all this evidence for themselves, and it'd be very easy for a well-meaning but uninformed person to take that article and then run the opposite direction with it- thinking that the authors are claiming the opposite of the refuted study. All they're doing is claiming that a previous study was not scientifically valid- they're not trying to argue that gun shows actually do promote violence or anything of the sort.

Fubini:One goal is to establish how many total gun uses there are (regardless of whether they're fired or not) and then quantify those types of uses. You might not agree that this usage is "self defense," but it's clearly on a whole different level from a criminal brandishing a gun while robbing someone. Neither instance results in a shooting, but they're both uses, and we'd like to be able to understand how guns are actually being used.

Someone bringing a firearm to guard against an imaginary danger can not be considered 'self-defense' or even 'using' the gun. If that were the case, then research will produce hyperinflated numbers of gun uses in self defense. By this reasoning, every time a gun owner loads a gun, holds a gun, conceals it, or brings it with them anywhere, could be considered a 'use' as long as the intention of the person was to use the gun in the event of any dangerous circumstance, perceived or real. When a police officer brings a gun with him to work, is he 'using' the gun? How many times is he using the gun throughout the day as it stays holstered? Is each traffic stop a separate use of the gun? Each time he exits the vehicle? What about someone with a concealed carry permit?

Digipr0f69:Legitimate research could shut that whole thing down. We'll just truck along listening to the shills on the pro- and anti-__________ think tanks, lobby organizations and paid hacks as the sole source of our policies. So long as that continues, we'll still have thousands of________ every year who _______ unnecessarily and, simultaneously, weird __________ laws that make no sense and only serve to confound _____________. We've clearly chosen the direction wherein everybody loses except the lobbyists themselves; they'll laugh all the way to the bank.

Isn't this how everything is done now?

Well, yeah, pretty much. Who needs facts when there's money to be made at the expense of society?

Watch this thread where Farkers will show their own research and opinions proving the above statement wrong.

Actually, surprisingly enough, I agree. There is a lack of *GOOD* basic science.

The article points out the political pitfalls of the science, and it obliquely touches upon why the CDC was forbidden from from working on gun violence, but it doesn't come out and say the actual reason: Because the CDC's research on the matter was so bad that it had to be either due to blatant bias, or to serious incompetence.

Congress decided that *NO* science was better than *BAD* science, and I have to agree with that position. Consider betting on dice. If you are told the dice are fair, when they are actually loaded, you've got bad data, and if you make decisions upon that data, you're most likely going to lose. If, on the other hand, you aren't told anything about the dice, you might assume that they are loaded, and bet accordingly. Or, you may not. On average, though, you'll come out better if you don't make any assumptions about the fairness of the dice than you would if you assumed the dice were fair when they actually weren't.

That's kind of what the situation was in 1996: The CDC, because of some bias was viewing gun violence research as if it were a transmissible disease. That's not to say that the bias was necessarily intentional. I can think of numerous ways it could have been unintentional:

1. People with advanced degrees who live and work in major cities often have very limited or zero exposure to non-criminal gun ownership, so subconsciously they internalize guns as purely a problem without a counterbalance.

2. People who normally work with communicable diseases don't understand that violence is different than, say, HIV or Influenza. This is the old "When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" problem.

3. The research was mostly done in large cities. For instance, one of the major researchers funded by the CDC, Arthur Kellermann, focused all his research in urban areas. That alone introduces a major bias into the data.

That's not to say there couldn't have been out-right intentional bias. Almost certainly there was at least some, and given the background of the researchers in question, it was probably more in the direction of pro-control instead of pro-rights.

I would actually *LOVE* to see good (ie., non-biased) research into the issue.

I don't think we are actually going to get that, though. We had this argument back in the 1990s, back when gun control was the fashion like it seems to be today.

To put it most succinctly: While I would welcome unbiased research into the matter, you have to go a *LONG* way, farther than normal, to convince me the research won't be slanted politically. Perhaps requiring researchers to publish their full datasets when they publish their papers, or very shortly thereafter, would help.

Also, in the end, it might largely be irrelevant because of the elephant in the room: The Second Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled that owning a firearm is an individual right, and it has incorporated that right against the states. That puts the brakes on a large number potential policies. Arguably, it could also cause the repeal of some current laws, for example, in the 10 states that currently limit CCW licenses on subjective criteria, or on permits to purchase that require a person pay hundreds of dollars just for the ability to own a handgun. Those are currently being litigated at the federal district court level, and we may be 100% "Shall Issue" in a couple of short years.

The author didn't even touch upon that, though: There is zero mention of "Second Amendment" in the article. Granted, it's about science, and in this article she focuses on problems with the data itself and how it's collected, but as I pointed out that's a very large elephant sitting in the room, and it gets largely ignored.

Generation_D:Citrate1007: Lobbyists don't want it at all for obvious reasons and anti-gun folks are usually motivated by emotion. It does speak volumes that the NRA is against any research because they feel that it would always make guns bad, but I honestly think that it would deflect the attention away from the actual guns and place the violence on the environmental/personal correlations. A lot of places have as many guns as us but don't see the violence. That in itself should also speak volumes.

you sure bout that? The USA leads the world in gun ownership per capita, by a factor of at least 2 or 3 over most of the world you want to be comparing to (e.g., Western Europe, Japan, Australia/NZ, etc)

/Checks google

Holy shiat, 88.8 guns per 100 people, Canada is at 30.3........well then. That really does shoot a hole in the NRA's arguments that all we need is more guns.